Is rebellion possible?

being disruptive is not the waterface way

I am the Occupy of ILX.

#occupyilx

bootlicking is, xp

How many people's lives did you disrupt that day?

people=people who needed to use a bank. duuuuuuuuuuuuh

soccupy

by making something about one person's house you allow the bank to win on the PR game

― iatee, Monday, June 17, 2013 8:46 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is why it's never solely about one person's house--it's about a movement to oppose evictions, and every piece of literature we produce, every interview we give, every time one of our homeowner's speaks at a rally or to the press, we work to emphasize that this is bigger than one person in one house. and i can tell you that no journalist in this city runs the story as 'bank does a nice thing.' it runs as 'activists win victory against bank.'

emphasize it sure but it's very clear that the tactics to get one bank branch to modify a mortgage aren't going to be effective on a macro scale because it's the difference between asking them to give up basically nothing and asking them to give up something substantial

Hoos your daddy now, Big Bank?

yes, you've cracked the nut of 'organizing a mass movement against foreclosures.' i don't know how to solve that problem either, but people better versed in the appropriate policy questions are doing a lot of thinking about it right now, and i'm listening.

xp

as in 'what is the pressure point to attack that will result in motion in the direction we're aiming'

well the only way to make radical political changes in society is the actual political process

there needs to be a platform for the political process to fall back upon otherwise there's no reason to change; protests form the foundation of that platform

I don't think bothering a bank until they decide x thousand dollars isn't worth this annoyance constitutes progress...it's kinda just a feel goody activism. it's not super far from someone being the lucky person to get a home makeover show on tv and it pulls at the same heartstrings. xp

there needs to be a platform for the political process to fall back upon otherwise there's no reason to change; protests form the foundation of that platform

ya I agree w/ this and I was the first ilxor at ows for the record. I don't think protesting is bad but it also can quickly become navel gazing when it refuses to engage w/ the political meatgrinder

activists should give the banks home makeovers instead and see what happens

I don't think bothering a bank until they decide x thousand dollars isn't worth this annoyance constitutes progress...it's kinda just a feel goody activism. it's not super far from someone being the lucky person to get a home makeover show on tv and it pulls at the same heartstrings. xp

― iatee, Monday, June 17, 2013 9:09 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no, one win isn't the fuckin revolution. it's a step that builds momentum, gains membership for a movement, builds community power and solidarity. every time we win one, the number of people at our next local meeting has doubled. and we're not even really killing it the way they're killing it in minnesota, for example, where they in fact *are* winning policy changes based on the successful creation of a statewide network that mobilizes as a unit.

Most successful political movements have radical and non-radical wings. It basically boils down to "You can get with this [milder-mannered, "legit" group working through political process to achieve relatively reasonable goals] or you can get with that [more "militant" group who won't compromise so gladly and will cause you a lot more trouble]."

and it's way more fun to be on the far side.

drunk guy told me once "i'm mostly an anarchist bcz i think it's important that there are anarchists in the world"

"i don't know what i want, but i know how to get it..."

are you sure he didn't say "alcoholic"?

"You can get with this [milder-mannered, "legit" group working through political process to achieve relatively reasonable goals] or you can get with that [more "militant" group who won't compromise so gladly and will cause you a lot more trouble]."

― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Monday, June 17, 2013 9:19 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol kudos didn't notice this

and it's way more fun to be on the far side.

broadly speaking I think there's an inverse correlation between how fun any given political activism is and how efficiently you're using your time

Get a blog motherfucker

― copter (waterface), Monday, June 17, 2013 10:21 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/1359061/mario-flag-pole-o.gif

broadly speaking i don't disagree. knocking on people's doors and asking for sign-ons to upcoming meetings is generally boring as fuck, but it's where the real work happens.

conversely, as the saying goes, if i can't dance...

xp

"if i can't orchestrate four simultaneous banner drops while a bassnectar song plays and we block four intersections, its not my revolution" = high impact activism

At last year's Occupy Our Homes convergence there was a proposition--that ultimately failed--to get us to adopt principal reduction as a unifying goal alongside our various local campaigns. I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on that as I wasn't in attendance for those discussions and don't really know enough about the policy questions. Are we talking about it on the housing thread or somewhere?

Principal reduction for people facing foreclosure? In general or just in cases of inflated home prices (e.g. pre-financial crisis)?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/17/g_is_for_grab_bag_g8_protests_northern_ireland

My understanding is principal reduction for ppl in crisis xp

as much as I think the global summit party had its uses a decade ago I wonder about the efficacy of G8 actions today--it's not the same as WTO/FTAA stuff, and the TPP has successfully obscured itself enough that people aren't rowdying around it

I don't think bothering a bank until they decide x thousand dollars isn't worth this annoyance constitutes progress

The only way it isn't progress is if you work for the bank and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. If this boils down to "It's only one bank, you still can't change the system" then really why do anything at all? Why even have any laws?

hoos you see this? someone go throw something at a mcdonalds.

http://articles.philly.com/2013-06-17/news/40008232_1_debit-card-minimum-wage-fees

fuckers...

yes, just saw that. so mad.

unbelievable

presumably, the system saves the franchisee on payroll costs. JPM probably gives the "service" to the franchisee cheap or free knowing that they'll make money on the fees. The franchisee is basically selling its employees to a bank.

The customer-service end of banks is horrible (customers in this case being the people that use the bank mainly as a place to keep their money). It's basically like a pickpocket operation, they constant have their hands on your wallet, with one fee or another, all these extra little charges that they invoke because somehow it is legal, and the majority of people just say "Aw, fuck this!" and pay the fee and forget about it. Because what are you going to do? You can't change the banking system, and you can't change it politically, cos all those fuckers are best friends.

So you just pay the $30 fee that is invoked because your "Account must have a minimum of $1000" in it. You are being charged for being poor. Once this fee started popping up on my account and I brought it up with a teller. They offered to switch my account to a "Free Checking Account", which wouldn't charge me that fee. Was there any fee involved in switching from what I had to this account? No. Was there any difference between this type of account and the one I had, other than I was being charged $30 extra a month? No. These banks are nothing more than literal pickpockets.

So yeah, if you can get banks to stop a foreclosure, you are an effing hero.

jesus hellchrist

btw hurting et al this is keith ellison's thinking on principal reduction etc, and its the stuff that OOH-MN has helped bring to the fore:

Could you elaborate on your proposal for principal reduction?

Underwater mortgages are holding people in homes that they can’t leave. And if you can’t sell your house then you can’t go to the job across the nation that might pay more. This is cutting into families' discretionary income. And it's a drain on the economy. At the end of the day, we need people to be able to stay in their homes if they want to, and people must be able to sell their homes if they need to. Without writing down these mortgages, we’re going to be stuck. I encourage people who are in the housing movement to make a robust and directed demand at the administrator of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) [to reduce mortgage principals].
How do you respond to those who say that principal reduction is unrealistic?

Banks have already been [writing down mortgages] in certain instances. There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence that plenty of writing down can be done. But here’s the other thing: Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee about 60 percent of the residential mortgages in the country. If they own them, they can write them down. That’s it. In the 1930s there was a precedent for this kind of action. At the end of the day, it is possible and it's the right thing to do. It’s just a political question as to whether we can muster the will to do it.
What impact do you think social movement groups organizing against foreclosures are making with respect to the Washington debate?
Advertisement

I think that they’re having an enormous effect. In fact, I don’t think we’d be anywhere close to doing anything without them. Clearly, the people are leading the politicians in this situation. And I’m so grateful to them. Without raising the public ire, we would not be able to make the forceful demands that we’re making now.

To be perfectly fair to members of Congress, they’ve been arguing with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and with FHFA for a long time. But the administrators listen to us and say, 'Yeah, yeah … right, Congressman.' Then they go on doing what they want to do.

Now, if these agencies have to start dealing with some street heat, they will see things differently. I think that heat is indispensable.

Sympathetic members of Congress have the power to draft, introduce, and vote on legislation. But leaders in the progressive community and in the housing movement have the ability to mobilize, educate, and organize all across America. We need each other to be successful.

it's not a bad idea but it is effectively a bailout

For whom, in what way?

for people w/ underwater mortgages, many of whom are not the poorest americans, by taxpayers

incidentally geithner pushed for this

Because what are you going to do?

um, not put your money in a bank

incidentally geithner pushed for this

― iatee, Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:47 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah, i recall that

so I mean 'should activists push for something even after the white house fully supports it and doesn't have the ability to change it'

cbo seems to suggest that principal reduction by FHFA would avoid enough defaults to make it worth the money

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2013/05/06/report-principal-forgiveness-could-reduce-costs-for-taxpayers/

well it seems to me this is why demarco's head rolled and and mel watt saddled up

well the white house supports torture, trial-less executions, and endless war, should activists just support those things too